What troubles me the most is that Sophie is repeating the wordings of the Twits that she quotes. “I am not Charlie, I am Ahmed the dead cop. Charlie ridiculed my faith and culture and I died defending his right to do so.” writes one Dyab Abou Jahjah. “True Hero, protecting the magazine who made fun of his religion.” writes one Faran Ahmed Khan. But the really galling one for me is “#JeSuisAhmed, the policeman who died defending a magazine’s right to insult his religion and culture”, as written by one haroon moghul (I hope that is an alias, and see what an insult really looks like, haroon?).

All Muslim men have tiny penises and are too babyish to deal with real, strong, or independent women.

Islam is a load of bollocks dreamed up by a Sheikh to distract from his pedophilia.

Muslims in general disgust me, but if I could make it mandatory that all their boys have their balls chopped off and stuffed in glass jars, I would do so faster than you can shit.

In order: ridicule, making fun, and insult. (Or at least what I perceive as examples thereof.)

Actually, there is not really a singular statement in that pack that is not factual. Males who live in Islamic theocracies act like babies. A man of some status wanted to create a religious movement in order to distract from the fact that he “married” girls who were a significant number of years below the age at which puberty generally occurs. And the behaviour of people who think I should be murdered for pointing out those two things makes me contemptuous of them. All. Solid. Factual. Statements.

Oh yeah, and since we are keeping score here, I want to repeat a little factoid that Islam-aid-drinkers apparently fail to understand. Those genes people have that result in you looking Arabic or African or Jewish or what have you, those are involuntary. That is, the person was born with these attributes and can change them no more than they can change the colour of their eyes, or the colour of the sky. Even changing one’s sex is easier than changing your racial attributes. Believing that a man who married and traded marriages to bed pre-pubescent girls had a personal hotline to an Abrahamic deity, whose existence is extremely unlikely let us not forget, is voluntary. A person can stop it as soon as they please and have the will to commit to doing so. In fact, it was harder to get me to believe similar nonsense when I was a small child than it is to cease and desist from believing it. If the voluntary nature of belief were properly understood by law and science, the belief that is the very core of Islam would be considered insane to boot.

To recap, nationality/race involuntary, Islam voluntary.

(That is, when you decide you do not want to be Islamic anymore, nature/reality does not respond to you with Tumbleweed silence. This is why Muslims cannot ever meet the definition of a minority group. The first, and in my opinion most important, part of the United Nations’ definition of a social minority group is, quote, “involuntary membership”. It is possible to be considered a part of a minority group in America or Australia if you are of Middle Eastern origin, and on that basis alone. It is not possible to meet the proper definition of a minority group anywhere in the world just because you drunk the Islam Drool-aid.)

That is not insult, ridicule, nor making fun. It is a fact.

One of the reasons that Muslims and Islam are both so repellent to outsiders is not prejudice, not fear, nor the crybaby standby of racism. It is in fact a desire for safety from people who think that ideas should have the same rights as people. Muslim fanatics urge violence when people have the audacity to say, write, or do anything that is critical of Islam. Even people are not allowed to absolve themselves of being subject to criticism, so the argument can be made that Muslims want Islam to be treated better than people. Some of us keep the stones to say that this is an idea that is not merely bad, but abhorrent to everything it means to be Human. Muslims pretend this is, their word, “Islamaphobia”. Yeah, well, I do not tolerate the idea that people should be allowed to maim or otherwise diminish the quality of life of girls on the sole basis of being girls from Christers, either. This, Christers, is your cue to start throwing words like Christerphobia around. Consider it a free tip because I want the limp-wristed Keep Everything The Same media to learn what a leaky sock of runny shit the word Islamaphobia is.

So I say unto Sophie Kleeman, you have done the people wishing to be allowed to escape and leave behind the mind control that is Islam a grave disservice. You have done discussion, and the right of people to not have Islam shoved into their faces despite their wish to not be a part of it, a grave disservice. Islamic scripture urges violence against the outsider, and nobody in the Islamic leadership has exhibited the balls to say “this text is hereby removed from the version of the Koran that we distribute” or “if these violent, childish assholes who cannot withstand criticism want to call themselves Muslims, then we are going to start calling ourselves something else”.

That, Sophie, is how a member of a society that urges and organises violence against outsiders protests that violence.

Our right is to hold Islam up to examination and say “this is ridiculous, even criminal”. Our right is to say “if you are going to treat women in an even worse manner than we already do, we do not want you around us”.

You, Sophie, would do well to remember the old saying that he who is silent (or insufficiently voicing objection) is understood to consent.

If what it takes to remove an unacceptable idea from our world is to remove the people who believe it and teach it to others, fair trade as far as I am concerned. In case it was not already apparent, we have more Humans on the planet than we can survive having, anyway.

(Regarding my statement that Islamic scripture urges violence, this particular page is a wealth of information of why there cannot and never will be any real thing called Islamaphobia. I will quote part of the page here:

“The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet [Mohammed] married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.”

As a man who has two nieces, both of whom will be five years old at the end of this year, I find it utterly repugnant and indicative of unacceptable flaws in your character that you can find fault with me for desiring a voluntary characteristic based on the work of this individual be kept out of my society and more importantly theirs (my nieces’, that is).)

Sharia [Islamic law] is totally incompatible with the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Women are inferior under Islamic law—their testimony in a court of law is worth half that of a man; their movement is strictly restricted; they cannot marry non-Muslims. Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries also have inferior status under Islamic law; they may not testify against a Muslim. In Saudi Arabia, following a tradition of Muhammad, who said that “two religions cannot exist in the country of Arabia,” non-Muslims are forbidden to practice their religion, build houses of worship, possess religious texts, etc. Non-believers or atheists in Muslim countries do not have “the right to life”; all the major law schools, whether Sunni or Shia, agree that they are to be killed. (Muslim doctors of law generally divide sins into great sins and little sins. Of the 17 great sins, unbelief is the greatest, more heinous than murder, theft, adultery, etc.) Slavery is recognized as legitimate in the Koran. Muslim men are allowed to cohabit with any of their female slaves, and they are allowed to take possession even of married female slaves. One does not have the right to change one’s religion if one is born into a Muslim family; here is how the great commentator Baydawi sees the matter: “Whosoever turns back from his belief, openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever you find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.” And here are the punishments in store for transgressors against the Holy Law: amputation, flogging, crucifixion, and stoning to death.

Being autistic makes it impossible for me to follow Sharia to the satisfaction of Muslims. Being autistic is not voluntary. Ergo, it compels me to spit on Muslims and spit on anyone who will indulge in apologism for them.

Seriously though, I couldn’t agree more. Islam (and every other religion that is even vaguely like it) really is a load of tripe, and it never ceases to amaze me how even the most principled of people, who claim to be upholders of basic human rights and dignity, will actually defend it. Many of them also apparently believe that it is ‘racist’ to criticise Islam, so the answer could simply be that they are just stupid as well, and so you were right to point out how utterly ridiculous the equation of a hatred of Islam with racism really is. A case of stating the – to us – obvious, I know.

Islam is undignified, coarse, barbaric, and puerile poppycock, and anyone who thinks that the Quran contains anything at all of value within its pages needs serious psychiatric help.

It is funny you should mention this, because I recently came across a site at Religion Of Peace that, instead of simply barking arguments, points out exactly what is in the Koran and invites the reader to come to any conclusion. They also link a lot to a site where you can read the Koran in its entirety so people can see for themselves what Islam is really like. Yet you STILL get these knob-heads who plead “out of context” or “they are not all like that”. Unbelievable. Reminds me of what Groucho Marx said about clubs that would allow him to be a member. A club like Islam is not one that people who are genuinely interested in peace and love toward their fellow Human should want to be a part of.

The intentional theme of this journal is all about TRON: Legacy. This is for a number of reasons. A prominent one that is easily discovered on the Internet is that people who really get it is a small minority. Another good one is that unlike 99.999 percent of Disney films, this one recognised that the pre-existing audience is now either grandparents or people who are old enough to have children themselves. My sister was four years old when the original TRON was released. Five days after my first viewing of TRON: Legacy, my twin nieces were born. And finally, if Clu 2.0 does not remind people of Suzanne Wright, then those people are very ignorant of what the autism civil rights thing is about.